South of the James

By Conaway B. Haskins III

Black Athlete Sports Network, March 21, 2005

Jay McNair was introduced to golf by his grandfather when he was just ten years old. Since then, this 30 year-old DC native has developed a healthy obsession for the game. When not working at his day job as a school administrator in Brandon, Florida, he can be found teeing it up at Rogers Park Golf Course. A one-time professional golfer, he admits to not having many other interests “outside of golf. With me, it’s working and then golf. Everything I do revolves around it. Even when I read, I’m reading golf books and magazines.”

After playing for three years on Florida A&M’s Division I golf squad, he graduated in 1998 and took a job as school teacher. On the side, he worked as an assistant professional at a local course and played in regional tournaments throughout Florida. Occasionally, he played in regional tournaments. “I was what you’d call a check casher,” he said, “I shot low enough to win money.”

Mostly playing in local tournaments and in private competitions for cash, McNair says that he would “work from 6am to 2pm [at his school post] and then try to find a game and make $50-60. It was about just loving to play. I didn’t do a lot of practice. I’d just tee it up and play for whatever.” An admittedly competitive person, he says that he would “try to beat [opponents] and take [their] money because I didn’t make any money as an assistant pro. I was playing people I knew I could beat. That was my attitude.”

McNair’s interest in the game helped him earn a spot as a finalist on the fall and winter season. The Golf Channel’s hit reality show, “The Big Break II.” Ironically, it was his girlfriend, who watched the first season of the show, who encouraged him to apply. She even helped him fill out the proper applications and do the necessary follow-up. He says, “She did all the work.” In February 2004, he got a call from The Golf Channel inviting him to Miami for an audition.

McNair had to rely on his golf skills before he set foot at the audition. Since he was low on cash, he says that he hit the golf course to make money for the trip. “I went out to a weekend skins game and put my last $20 up and made a few side bets. I won $400, picked up my girlfriend, and went straight to Miami,” he laughs. “We had a good time, stayed in a nice hotel, and went to Doral for the audition.”

The Golf Channel selected 9 golfers through the auditions, and the tenth selection – which was McNair – was picked by the viewers. As a result, he got the nickname “Viewer’s Choice.” Unfortunately for him, his time was short-lived as he was the second contestant eliminated. Although he only spent two days at the competition site in Las Vegas, McNair jokes, “It was hard not to enjoy the 48 hours I was there. The treatment was first class.”

A few months after his stint on the show, McNair was promoted from a classroom teacher to an administrative position. The added responsibility means that he has less time to spend on the course. He says, “I’m a weekend golfer now [mostly] playing on Saturdays and Sundays.”

Though he was only on the show briefly, as a Big Break II finalist, he was awarded an exemption on to the 2005 Hooters Tour, allowing him to enter events without having to qualify. So far, because of the time commitments with his job, McNair has not entered any events he says that he does not have time to focus on improving his game.

Not wanting to incur the expenses of playing, he now says, “I have to reassess how dedicated I am to [professional golf]. I got to figure out a way to still get my golf in. It’s tough, but such is life.” He has no regrets about advancing his teaching career at the expense of his golf career, and is reconsidering his plans. “I will never be the guy to sit here and tell you I want to be on the PGA tour. My goal is to play professionally every single day. I don’t care what tour. I just want the opportunity to do it. My goals are short and sweet. If I can’t see it in a year or 2, I don’t look at it. I don’t have 10 year goals.”

Despite not being able to play pro golf in the near term, McNair believes that the world of professional golf is looking up for African Americans seeking pro careers. “It’s not so much about Tiger turning it around, but the golfing community respects us as players. If we get opportunity, it’s going to happen soon. There are a lot of good black players around. The old days of this being a white sport are over.”

He sees other black golf pros as being optimistic about their futures. “The guys that I know, they’re not using the black golfer thing as a crutch any more. Investors [who provide financial backing to players] will give anyone a chance if you’re good.” Despite being at the crossroads of his golf career, McNair is certain that if he has the opportunity to play in the pro ranks, he will do well. He says, “If I could do it full-time, I’d raise some hell and cash some checks.” In the meantime, he will keep taking it one hole at a time.

by Conaway B. Haskins III

This article is an adaptation of a speech presented to the Low Country & Chesapeake Society in February 2005.

After talking with academics, activists in the Black left and right, community leaders, and even Black professional athletes, I have gained a greater insight about what the critical issues are relating to community rebuilding in Black America. At the same time, I reviewed quite a bit of literature and research to see what the latest state of the art was on the issues that consistently come to the forefront of such activities. As a result, I feel that the best way for me to serve this issue of community rebuilding is to offer a framework for discussion that should eventually translate into specific actions. While much of this ground has been covered by other, more illustrious figures, the information presented is a distillation of key ideas.

As such, several caveats must be acknowledged in terms of the framework that this paper lays out. Because the purpose is to rebuild from the inside out, the focus is on what the Black community can do for themselves, not about actions that can be taken through political and business solutions. While our communities do have recognized community leaders in the form of educators, pastors, agency heads, activists, and the like, the vexing problem of this model is that they often default to political (read: government programs) solutions instead of building communities from the grassroots and developing assets. It is far easier to organize a protest than to roll out a viable, strong organization that serves people.

While partnering with those external to the community is a necessary and useful enterprise, setting the parameters for rebuilding Black communities should first zero in on actions that Black people can take to help themselves. Without getting into a debate about the legitimacy of affirmative action, reparations, or special poverty programs, the mindset proposed here reflects a deviation away from the government-dependent mentality that plagues the contemporary civil rights establishment and the Black left. Essentially, what is first required is for Black Americans is a true abandonment of the tendency toward perpetual self-victimization.

This “woe is me” approach is prevailing among the so-called black leadership and has trickled down to the people. The beacons of this ideology – mainstream media outlets, the civil rights establishment, and the Black liberal intelligentsia – play up social and economic conditions as if they are reaching epically desperate proportions. The overwhelming attention on the black poor – such as the epidemic of African American male unemployment in major urban areas – and their problems has essentially created an environment whereby Black America is defined by its weakest links. Granted, crime still plagues many urban black communities, and there are those who claim that black voters have been discriminated against at the polls. However, the rush to establish depravity and despair among our people as given creates an environment of desperation that leaves the reality of the diversity of Black life often unexamined.

I want to posit a different viewpoint to address the issue of rebuilding Black America by focusing on our assets, and looking toward our collective and individual futures with a sense of hope and optimism. While many so-called leaders of Black America lead with a sense of threatened survival, we have the opportunity to shift from a paradigm of abject scarcity and eternal victim-hood that threatens to swallow Black American whole. By reflecting on the strengths of our community and looking to works, we can address our weaknesses that hinder the progress of our people.

Black America Today: Behind the Numbers
A discussion of community rebuilding with a large scale focus would be incomplete without a quantitative assessment of Black America. The facts and figures that are available provide some level of insight into where Black America is currently situated and are necessary to construct a roadmap to the future. Nonetheless, experience has shown that often, research can only paint a picture of a particular time in place, and it very well misses the critical interactions that occur on a human level. As such, we should take care to put any statistics that are offered in their proper light, knowing that where the rubber meets the road, the numbers can fall by the wayside.

Economically speaking, Black America’s disposable income was pegged at $600 million in 2000 and $750 million in 2004. It is projected to reach $1 billion by 2009, representing nearly 10% of the nation’s buying power in coming years. This resource base can serve as a source of real power for and change in our communities. If we focus our time, energy and capital toward the development of our communities, we can ensure greater prosperity and opportunity for our people.

In terms of human capital, African Americans have seen a steady increase their educational attainment in the years since Brown v. Board. However, it must be acknowledged that Black high school dropout rates are alarmingly high, and the rates of college attendance need must improvement. Despite this, Black America has seen high school degree attainment reach 80% for adults. This places us ahead of Latinos and only slightly behind Whites and Asians in terms of finishing our grade school education, often the most basic point of entry for the mainstream employment market. At present, 18% of African Americans have earned a bachelors degree, compared to 30% of Whites, 50% of Asians, and 13% of Latinos. At the same time, less than 1% of Blacks hold graduate degrees. Undoubtedly, we have much more work to do in terms of Black higher education because no amount of reframing can disguise the fact that our kids are not graduating from college at a competitive rate, and the numbers of those who seek advanced degrees is paltry. However, just as the disparities between Black and White high school students have been chipped away, there is hope that we can attack the higher education issue with just as much vigor and success.

It is widely accepted that work is the most critical element to economic success in this country and that it is basis from which wealth and income flow. As it currently stands, black unemployment has hovered around 10-11% for quite some time, nearly equal for men and women. While, this rate is higher than the 6-8% marks in the late 1990’s, in general, unemployment in America has increased with the echoes of the Internet bust and 9-11. Rates for White are between 4-5%, and rates for Latinos are typically from 6-8%. Conventional wisdom considers this comparative disadvantage to be a disturbing sign, and on the surface, it is troubling that our folks are out of work at higher rates that other ethnic groups. However, if we look at this from another angle, the glass is a bit more than half-full. Even though Black unemployment is double the rate of whites and higher than Latinos, when we shift our framework from the perspective of employment rates, the gaps diminish. Thus, the chasm of Black unemployment falls always when we consider that, on average, 90% of Blacks, 94% of Latinos, and 95% of Whites are employed. Taking a strengths-based approach, so to speak, starts to paint a more promising picture for our future.

More so that any other statistic, economic poverty is a good proxy for class stratification as it is linked to many of the problems that persist in Black America, such as educational deficiencies, poor health, crime pandemics, and widespread joblessness. As both a cause and effect factor in American life, alleviating and reducing poverty has been the centerpiece of numerous public policy and social reform efforts inside and outside Black America. Merely mentioning and discussing poverty and those who live in it is not enough – if we accept that class distinctions are a key fact of life in Black America, we must examine those who are also in the working class or are “working poor.”

In 2004, it was estimated that 24% of Black people and 33% of Black children lived below the poverty line. 24% of all Black people and 27% of all Black children live between poverty and twice the poverty line. This means that at least half of all Black people live well above impoverished conditions in terms of income, and could legitimately be considered middle class. Again, the issue of geography is important as income and wealth has different connotations and interacts differently with opportunity, in different sections of the country. Compared to ten years ago – 1994 – these numbers have improved somewhat. Ten years ago, 31% of Black people and 43 % of Black children lived under the poverty line. 24% of Black people and 25% of Black children lived between poverty and twice the poverty line. On the surface, this shows that we are generally doing much better than we did in the past.

If we dig a bit deeper, we start to see trends that are at once confounding and hopeful. The issue of single parenthood, especially for our women and girls, is one that has been debated for years, with good reason. Single African American mothers face a 40% poverty rate and almost 30% of Black single moms live between poverty and twice the poverty rate. In 1994, half of Black single mothers lived below the poverty rate and another 25% lived between poverty and twice the poverty rate. While these figures to illustrate that Black single moms had a slight bit of improvement in terms of their economic condition, the fact that over 70% of them persistently subsist at poverty or working poor levels is stunning statistic. It is understandable that much ado has been made over this, but, harkening back the notion that we cannot define ourselves so completely by our weakest links, we must continue to provide context for such discussions.

On the other side of the coin is the fact that only 8.6% of married Black couples live under the poverty line, and only 20% live between poverty and twice the poverty rate. Going back to 1994 shows that a shade over 10% of married Blacks lived in poverty and 23% lived between poverty and twice the poverty rate. The continuing decrease in the number of married Blacks who live in poverty should be of great interest to all of us, but it is premature to announce causative relationships around family stability, wealth and income in the Black America. Still, anecdotally, this hypothesis seems to hold some promise. However we choose look at it these numbers, we can safely assert that, on balance, Black America is doing better today that it was in the past.

The Trouble With Black Culture
The overall decrease in concentration of poverty and the stabilization of employment among African Americas is something that should give us cause for hope. If we merely go by the numbers, contrary to conventional wisdom regarding racial dynamics in this country, things are not nearly as bad as some make them out to be. To that end we should consider more qualitative aspects of our culture and community that don’t necessarily lend themselves to data collection. On balance, Black America is doing better today than in the past by any number of statistical measures, but beyond what the numbers say, all we have stunning moral failures and social pathologies that are not easily captured by statistics. We must seek to cut off the roots of the socio-cultural deficiencies that impede Black America’s progress and threaten the survival of our communities.

Today, calls for “Black Unity” as the first order of business allow us to excuse destructive Black behaviors. It is our responsibility to speak out against this tendency to “define deviance downward” in Black America in search of lowest common denominators that link us all. We must refuse to lift up those negative elements of Blackness that are currently deemed culturally acceptable, and develop a higher moral compass for the community. We must not be afraid of engaging in honest discussion and criticism that causes discomfort in many quarters of the community because the price for maintaining the status quo is too high.

Black popular culture is bombarded with self-destructive images that continuously chip away at the fabric of our society. The notion of hard work and incrementally building toward a goal has been dismantled and replaced with an “anything goes” moral relativism. Our celebrity-obsessed pop culture has openly abdicated responsibility for being a role model, as Charles Barkley so ineloquently voiced. This focus on quick-fixes and celebrities contributed to the overall lack of productive social conditions among Black folk. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of morally upright leadership in the community. The elevation of self-proclaimed and media-anointed Black leaders focuses on charismatic figures with entertaining sound bites. This illusion of leadership contributes mightily to the waywardness of Black culture and impedes true community-building – it is vapid and unsustainable and must be resisted. Black cultural leadership has defaulted to always looking for the “next big thing” to show up as spokespeople for 35 million. This model is broken, and should be abandoned.

While generational poverty has contributed to our moral shortcomings, such bad behaviors also fester dangerously among the black middle class. These families are subject to a Black popular culture defined by hedonistic rap music, written literature tending toward sexual prurience (i.e. the obsession with “Down Low” brothers), and television and film buffoonery. Previous generations had negative black images forced upon them by the White-controlled institutions in this country, but today, Blacks are the leading purveyors of Black exploitation and degradation. If we do not act to correct this now, we will essentially be consigning ourselves to another form of slavery, only this time, we will be the slave masters.

If our path is to be different, it makes sense for us to self-impose standards of decency in the community. There will be those who opposed this, and although it sounds harsh, we must be willing to abandon them for they care nothing for our true culture and treat character-building values with contempt. Our penchant for Christian forgiveness has given away to a culture of permissiveness that continues to define deviance downward and raise self-destructive behavior upward. This must stop if we are to rebuild and renew. We must hone in the positive side of our cultural and social capital, our heritage and history to construct a new asset base from which to affect positive change. We can take our strengths from our community’s grassroots – the everyday people who, by simply living good lives, provide a foundation of leadership upon which our view of Black America is built.

Pitching Black Responsibility
A cornerstone of our effort must be to take on a greater sense of personal & community responsibility. This is not simply to recycle Booker T. Washington, nor is it inflammatory Right-wing “victim-blaming.” As politically incorrect as it may sound, Black Americans must take control of their lives, families, and communities. Our own actions and reactions – collectively and individually – truly do play the most determinant role in our welfare, and we have to move beyond expecting others to help us first because they do not know our culture and our people as well as we do. We can, and should, practice collective and individual self-help in our mental, physical and emotion realms. We must assert more responsibility for those things that we can control, while working collectively to fight those external forces that work against us. At the same time, we need to develop mutually reinforcing networks, starting with each individual and each family, to help each other reach our fullest potential.

The negative emotional and mental well-being of many in our community is a leading cause of what can be deemed moral weaknesses. Research indicates that many of our intergenerational social pathologies stem from poor mental and physical health outcomes, a number of which have roots in personal behaviors. From a health perspective, African Americans are disproportionately afflicted with hypertension, obesity, low birth rate & high infant mortality, asthma, diabetes, cancer, AIDS and a host of other illnesses. This emotional deficit manifests itself in a number of ways: fractured family structures, alarmingly high teen pregnancy rates, outsized propensities toward male violence, and the self-degradation of Black women. While genetics, heredity and economics do play influence these conditions, a number of them are also related to lifestyle choices. The actions that we take upon ourselves can outweigh environmental factors such as pollution, exposure to hazards, and lack of health care. Eliminating those negative aspects of our behaviors, and engaging in more productive enterprises – for example more physical activity, improved personal hygiene, safer sexual behaviors, and smart food choices – are all within our own individual and familial locus of control.

Moving Forward: What We Can Do
Given the present state of Black America, new leaders must emerge to create and sustain institutions that can clearly articulate and serve our interests. New voices are needed on the horizons. Black America has a history of using such efforts to our advantage. As far back as the antebellum period, we traveled the Underground Railroad (admittedly, with assistance), we developed Black mutual aid societies and governing institutions (such as profiled on the Low Country website), and following the Civil War, we established Black colleges. In the early 1900’s Black folk developed social and civic groups such as the Black Greek fraternities and sororities, Jack & Jill, the Boule, etc.

The greatest example of this is the Civil Rights Movement of the 1910’s to 1960’s. This movement spawned from the heart of African American social capital. This effort was very good at identifying critical stakeholders and generating an emerging crop of leaders who had the moral credibility to speak to the hearts and minds of Black America and the country at-large. While the Movement did have its share of leaders from privileged and powerful backgrounds, people such as John Lewis and Medgar Evers cut their teeth at the community level and rose to prominence nationally through their hard work and dedication.

History indicates is that our culture is adaptive and our people are resilient. Anecdotally and from the perspective of research, communities of color tend to have well-defined social networks and community capital. Thus, even in working class and poor families and neighborhoods, the stage is set for strategic responses to pressing problems. The key impediment is that these networks are not always used productively and they are highly informal. Among our community institutions, there is a critical lack of structure – for example formal 501c status for nonprofits, registered corporations for businesses, etc. – in the provision of goods and services beyond the public sector safety net and the mainstream market.

Because our lives are lived locally, we should not rely on the practice of seeking “national fathers and mothers” to shepherd us along the way. National voices are still necessary; however, they must be rooted in something beyond the cult of personality that can often envelop a movement. Because of their prominence and advancement, these types rarely touch the lives of the average Black person. In contrast, there are community leaders who we can look to serve not as “role models,” per se, but as key contributors to the welfare of Black America. These leaders include the local black business owners and professionals who can provide vital commercial resources in the communities, as well as, mid and senior-level executives in corporate America who live among us. In the least, these entrepreneurs and managers are a conduit to the capitalist economy that drives this country. New leaders with this orientation can drive the debates and implement the projects that can truly have an impact on our communities, thus moving all of our people to a higher station in life.

Conclusion
In sum, we can truly rebuild Black communities from the inside out if we focus our eyes on the future with a sense of hope and optimism. Because our proverbial glasses are more than half-full, it is time for us to facilitate the shift in our community ethos from a paradigm of constant deficit and despair to one that provides a rubric of progress for all of our people. In offering this different lens, let us recall that there was little mention of the role of White people and governmental solutions vis-à-vis the ultimate fate of Black America. The basic principle at play is to renew Black America by letting go of the notion that our salvation rests external to the community. Again, this is not to suggest that there is no role for non-Blacks and larger institutions in the success of Black people. Rather, it suggests that it is primarily the responsibility of Black people to seek solutions among themselves, solutions that will inevitably involve others at some point but avoids reliance on those others and most points. The actions of the Black individual reigns supreme, the role of the Black family is critical, building self-sufficiency in the Black community is what we must strive toward. No less than our lives, and the lives of generations to come, are at stake.

by Webster Brooks III

Low Country & Chesapeake Society

Introduction

Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1989, George W. Bush is the first president to advance a comprehensive foreign policy that defines America’s role as the pre-imminent global superpower in the New World Order. In the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, the “Bush Doctrine” placed the United States in the vanguard of the Global War Against Terrorism that divided the international community between “those who are with us “and” those who are against us.” Building on the momentum of the Iraqi national elections in January 2005, Bush has since promoted a forced march to usher in the era of New Global Democracy using all the political, economic and military tools at his disposal to re-configure the geo-political equation.

The flurry of activity surrounding President Bush’s trip to Europe in February, underscored increasing tension in the Atlantic Alliance over the re-alignment of the global balance of power. In many ways, today’s international situation is as dangerous now as it has been since the Cuban missile crisis pushed the U.S. and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war in 1962. This heightened danger goes beyond the terrorist threat of Islamic fundamentalists.

The new arithmetic in which nuclear warheads and weapons still sit throughout the former Soviet empire remains the X-factor in matters of world peace and security. Emerging nations are aggressively attempting to acquire, develop and sell nuclear weapons systems to clients adverse to America’s national security interests. This has added a new dimension of global instability. Moreover, should Russia’s fragile democracy falter, Central Europe and the Near East could tumble into chaos. The Middle East is the throes of political transition in which nationalism, religious fundamentalism and democratic struggles against authoritarian rule spell future tumult. And, a potential long-term showdown between the U. S. and China looms on the horizon. These realities of the New World Order pose great challenges to American foreign policy.

In this statement “In Search of a New World Order,” Low Country identifies the major flashpoints of contention that will dominate America’s foreign policy agenda. Prior to outlining these issues a few general observations are in order.

Then and Now

With the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, the United States is the unquestioned leader of the world community. However, its position of economic and military strength is not as formidable as it was after World War 2. In the late 1940’s, the U.S. was the only nation with nuclear weapons. The devastation of war left much of Europe in economic ruin and weakened Britain and France’s military and financial position as colonial powers in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Under these circumstances the United States enjoyed a decisive economic and military advantage.

Today the U.S. is no longer the only nation with nuclear capability. The severe strain the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have imposed on U.S. military personnel, logistical support and equipment has revealed that our armed forces capacity to fight a sustained ground war has real limitations.

The U.S. victory in the Cold War over Communism was a non-military triumph. And while U.S. capital has penetrated Eastern Europe and pierced the Chinese Wall, our competitive edge, economically speaking is increasingly being challenged by China’s muscular growth in the Pacific Rim, the European Union, Russia’s neocolonial designs in Eurasia and the growth of India. The populations of China and India alone comprise 40% of the world’s population and the economic cooperation pact signed between the two nations in April 2005 is an indication of what the future will hold. In short, the United States will never enjoy a period like the 30-year run it had between the mid 1940’s and the mid-1970’s to assert global economic dominion.

These realities have tremendous implications as the process of global re-alignment pushes forward and the “Bush Doctrine” evolves. The current tension between the United States and the European Union is but a reflection of this phenomenon. Bush’s fence mending trip to Europe in February was the first step in smoothing the rough edges of his policies that were leading to a dangerous level of resentment and isolation, aggravated by the manner in which the U.S. prosecuted the Iraq War.

It is noteworthy that Bush’s trip to Europe yielded precious few results. He was only able to secure nominal financial aid from the Europeans to help underwrite the costs of the Iraqi conflict and reconstruction. Bush humbled himself somewhat on the issue of allowing the Europeans to take the lead in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, but his options were extremely limited. As to most of the advice Bush received from his embittered Atlantic allies, Bush said he would “listen and think about it.” In Slovenia, at a very uncomfortable press conference Bush lectured Premier Putin over the reversal of democratic reforms in Russia. But he did secure a minor agreement with the Russians to jointly scale down MANPADS weapons systems.

The “Nuclear Club”

Today, there are eight members of the nuclear club (United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan and India). It is North Korea and Iran’s admission to “the club” without an invitation that has been the source of some acrimony within the Atlantic Alliance and has placed the U.S. on the horns of sharp dilemma.

Since taking office in 2001, the Bush administration made no effort to negotiate or even conduct low level talks with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program. When former Secretary of State Powell opened up a back-door diplomatic channel to begin a dialogue, Bush shut the door and publicly humiliated Powell in doing so. Bush’s hard line may have played well to his base and Defense Department hawks, but it did little to thwart North Korea’s acquisition of enriched uranium to produce nuclear weapons. In March of 2005, for the first time the North Korean government admitted to having nuclear weapons, and a growing body of evidence suggests they are attempting to sell nuclear technology to several potential clients.

Bush has insisted that the U.S. will not engage in bi-lateral talks with North Korea and that all negotiations with North Korea will be done through the Six-Nations Talks (North & South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the U.S.). His administration has stepped up its pressure on China to help broker a deal. This is a flawed strategy that can only work if the Six Nations can offer Kim Jung Il an economic package that will rescue his regime. But therein lays the problem. Bush does not want Jung in power, with or without nukes. Furthermore, while most people assume that China has an interest in de-nuclearizing North Korea, it is more likely that China is indifferent to nukes in North Korea unless they receive substantial reciprocation for brokering a deal with Jung, as well as an acknowledged role in the future of North Korea.

The Bush administration has failed to answer a basic question as it regards its position toward North Korea; to what end has Jung sought to develop a nuclear program? It is not uncommon to read reports about Kim being an unbalanced madman, but he has managed to hold on and consolidate power since his father’s death–a feat few thought was possible, and he has pushed a poor country with no clout to the top of the nuclear club’s agenda.

Surrounded by Russia and China, and with a small U.S. presence in South Korea, it is improbable that North Korea is under the illusion that they can threaten and bully its neighbors into submission. The North Korean economy is in shambles and they cannot project substantial power beyond their borders. North Korea’s nuclear designs are meant to be a deterrent against invasion. Being a member of the nuclear club also gives North Korea and Kim international status that other small nations do not enjoy.

More importantly North Korea’s ability to sell nuclear technology to a growing list of clients for a variety of favors is the driving force behind their nuclear designs. Thus, halting the possible export of nuclear technology from North Korea is the principal threat to global and U.S. security, and its prevention should be the overarching goal of U.S. foreign policy.

Given the increased deterioration of the North Korean economy, striking a deal to scrap its nuclear weapons program in exchange for massive foreign aid and investment may be Jung’s ticket to survival.

For this reason, the Six Nations talks could succeed if the right aid package is formulated, but it will require substantial buy-in from the United States. The Bush Administration does not appear to want to buy-in at any cost. This is a similar position Bush took regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Bush Administration was not going to engage until Arafat was no longer part of the equation. With the death of Arafat, the Bush foreign policy team executed an about face. It is not a dangerous gamble to play a game of nuclear chicken with Kim Jung Il, nor is it likely that he will expire from old age as did Arafat, any time soon. The longer it takes to get an agreement the more substantial his program and the price for scrapping it in return for economic aid becomes.

The Iranian Option

Unlike North Korea, Iran is clearly moving to become a regional power and spread the influence of Islamic theocratic statecraft to the Middle East and the Southern Caucuses of the former Soviet Union. Iran has a substantial landmass, sufficient oil and gas reserves to generate petro-dollars, a strategic location in the Persian Gulf, growing influence in Iraq, and plenty of technical and intellectual firepower to emerge as major player on the international scene. Therefore its desire to acquire and build a nuclear weapons program poses a far more serious long-term problem for the U.S. than does that of North Korea.

Bush’s threat of possible U.S. military action against Iran if they go nuclear in his State of the Union address smacked of adolescent carnival. While it’s clear Iran’s ruling hard-line clerics want to acquire the technology to create fissile material for developing a nuclear weapon, they will not deterred by the threat of U.S. military response. The U.S. is barely holding its own militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. A land mass invasion of Iran is out of the question and even the effectiveness of a future air strike to surgically remove potential development facilities is a high risk venture with a low probability of success. By the time Bush had returned from his European trip in February, he repeated stated that the United States had no interest in attacking Iran.

The reformers in Iran are going to lose the upcoming Spring 2005 elections, and there is no prospect that a mass movement will displace Iran’s hard-line religious mullahs that have proved to be remarkably resilient. The U.S. is throwing its weight behind the Europeans to broker a negotiated settlement to neuter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Although the United States is pressuring Iran to drop its nuclear program their efforts are being undermined by countries like China, Russian and most recently the Ukraine, all of which are supplying technology that will help Iran develop its nuclear power facilities. Iran just concluded a 25-year deal to sell $20 billion in liquefied natural gas to China, and an $80 billion preliminary accord for oil and gas sales to China in exchange for help to develop Iran’s Yadavaran oil field. This is a critical development for Iran whose oil production infrastructure requires needed improvements.

Bordering on Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that both have U.S. military forces on the ground, It may be easy for American’s to forget that the U.S. sponsored the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government a half-century ago and installed the Shah who rivaled Saddam Hussein in brutality and suppression. Nor have Iranians forgotten that it was the U.S. that backed Hussein in their devastating war they had with Iran, which cost the nation millions of lives. The Iranian people have not forgotten. Thus there is not a political inducement for Iran to soften its stance against the U.S. Quite the opposite; the U.S. presence in the Middle East has only strengthened the hard-line clerics’ position within Iran.

On the other hand, it one thing to work towards developing a nuclear weapon, and it is quite another to have one. And that is the debate that is going on amongst the hard liners and the reformist clerics in Iran today. Led by former Prime Minister Hashemi Rafsanjani, the reformist clerics are concerned that chronic unemployment, corruption and patronage among religious elite will continue to push the country to desperate straights. Should Iran go nuclear, they will likely face very stiff sanctions from far more nations that just the United States, and this will exacerbate their internal situation. This is an extremely sticky situation for the United States, whose hard line position toward Iran, and its past history of involvement in undermining Iran’s democratic revolution and its Islamic revolution has given it little credibility to negotiate. The U.S. in now in a position in which it must rely on the Europeans to broker a deal that gives Iran iron clad economic incentives to halt its nuclear programs–incentives that must structured to economically benefit Iran’s growing middle class and begin to create the internal pressure for gradual democratic reforms and strengthens the position of the reformist Islamic clerics.

The Iron Curtain is Down but What About the Wall?

In this new global arrangement, notwithstanding the relatively tranquil relations between Washington and Beijing, China continues to represent the most significant long-term economic, political, and military adversary of the U.S. This nation of over one billion citizens has been the principal beneficiary of a host of international problems that the U.S. has been marinating in from Kabul to the West Bank. China has taken advantage of these regional conflicts to slowly and methodically project power in the Pacific Rim and beyond.

In April 2005 China passed an anti-secession law that made it illegal for citizens of Taiwan to advocate for independence. No sooner than the act was passed was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dispatched to Beijing to voice the United States level of discomfort with the measure. Rice was also there to urge the Chinese to forcefully step up its efforts to get North Korea back to the negotiating table to resume the Six Nations Talks, aimed at halting North Koreas nuclear program. China has long been regarded as the one nation with substantial leverage over North Korea, but in Low Country’s view, China is in no hurry to pressure Kim Jong Il, on the issue. They have little to fear from tiny North Korea and their nuclear weapons program. When Rice suggested China was dragging its feet, the Chinese Foreign Minister laughed and said that it was China that got the talks started in the first place.

If China is dragging its feet on North Korea, they have been moving quickly to conclude agreements to ensure its access to energy sources. Reports continue to surface that China is providing nuclear technology to Iran, and it return are moving to conclude deals to import Iranian Oil. Similar discussions are underway with the Ukraine, and the newly independent nations on the Caspian Sea, that include Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, not to mention holding talks with oil rich Nigeria.

Also, high on Secretary Rice’s agenda is the U.S.’s growing concern with China’s military build-up. The Chinese military is scheduled for a 12% increase in military spending this year. At the same time, the European Union is preparing to lift the arms embargo placed on China 16 years ago, in the wake of the crackdown on dissidents at Tiennanmen Square. Rice was quick to caution the EU about lifting the embargo, but the U.S. again is not is a position to dictate to the E.U. Ordering relations between China and the US is the outstanding issue that will remain on the table. between the U.S. and the European Union. China is positioning itself as a global player with tremendous force, both economic and military. Today, its leaders are pragmatic and tough, but who knows what tomorrow will bring. As China’s society modernizes so will the demand for more democratic freedoms, and the potential for political upheaval. Should such an internal showdown come, and the forces for democracy do not prevail, the U.S. may be confronted an even more antagonistic leadership in Beijing.

Putin’s Russia House

It remains to be seen whether post-Communist Russia can truly be regarded as an ally of the US. Despite Bush’s purported cozy relationship with Russian premier Vladimir Putin, the issue of whether democracy will survive in Russia is still up for grabs. The country’s refashioned foreign policy is informed by its attempt to reconfigure to the former Soviet Empire into a more flexible neo-colonialist arrangement.

Russia has consistently moved to tighten its control over its numerous autonomous regions, whose own nationalistic aspirations continue to surface as a significant challenge to the Putin’s regime in Moscow. From Chechnya to Dagastan and particularly throughout the Southern Caucuses, several automous regions are threathening to spin out of Moscow’s control. These areas are flash points of tension, rent with ethnic pressures, successionists strivings and in some instances radical Islamic movements.

Among the newly independent republics that were part of the former Soviet Union, the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have bolted from the Soviet sphere into NATO. Putin has also attempted unsuccessfully to subvert the election process of the former Soviet republics of Ukraine. It was a massive setback for the former KGB Lt. Colonel. The Ukraine was not only the most advanced industial region in the former Soviet Union, it is rich in natural gas and housed a significant portion of the Soviets nuclear arsenal. The Russians spent more than $2 million supporting Victor Yanukovich (a Moscow yes-man) who engaged in massive fraud to steal the first election. Only massive international outrage and the refusal of millions of Ukrainians that took to the streets to protest the outcome forced a second election, in which Victor Yushenko prevailed. The defeat of Yanukovish was not only an embarrassment to Moscow, but under the new President Yushenko, the Ukraine is will seek entry into the World Trade Organization and the European Union.

Georgia and Armenia political assassinations of leading political fugures and internal conflicts that border on civil war underscore the internal struggles in these regions. Armenian rebels have seized a section of Azerbaijan and in the last week of March the people of Kyrgyzstan took to the streets to oust another pro-Russian authoritarian ruler. the United States has been actively monitoring several for Soviet republics and is contending with the Russians particularly in the oil rich Caspian Sea region for influence and access to energy sources.

Within Russia, Putin has unleashed a crackdown on opposition parties, the arrest of Russian business leaders critical of his policies. In short Putin has been engaged in a very determined struggle against the leading illuminaries of the Novo Russki (the new Russian rich) known as The Oligarchs. The group of powerful Russian businessmen made their fortunes by buying critical and strategic business assets for bargain basement prices when Russia began its transition from a state owned enterprises to free enterprise system. At 40 years of age, Russia’s richest man Mikhai Kordorkovsky purchased Yukos oil for 300 million dollars, and quickly converted it into a multi-billion dollar company. But Khodorkovsy’s sin was not making money, it was purchasing newspapers and television outlets to begin to criticize Putin’s policies. He even financed two liberal opposition parties in Russia, that undermined Putin’s legislative muscle in the Duma. It is little wonder then that Putin had Kholorkovsy arrested and jailed, as he has increasingly done with other figures of The Oligarchs.

Seizing back private sector enterprises owned by The Oligarchs and converting them into state owned properties, is more of a strategic question of strengthening Putin’s hand internationally. Putin has been aggressively cutting deals gas and oil deals with Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela and other middle eastern regimes. Russia is piecing together an oil coalition that could be problematic for the U.S. and increase its vulnerability to price fixing. The increased petro-dollars flowing directly into the state coffers as opposed to the private sector, is also giving Putin more money to fend off internal pressures to improve the economy.

While Putin is closing down television stations and opposition newspapers to reverse the trend to democracy in Russia, the United States is turning a deaf ear. The U.S. appears to have adopted a policy that they will challenge Russia attempts to convert the former Soviet republics into vassal states of Moscow, but they will allow Putin free reign in Russia to consolidate his power. Russia’s strategic influence in Europe, the Middle East and Near East is to vital to risk disruption if a new leadership emerges with a different agenda. The challenges confronting the Kremlin are immense and the growing divide between the Novo Russki (the new rich Russian elite) and the broad majority of Russian people is exacerbating tensions in an already fragile nation.

The New Cradle of Democracy

The spread of democracy in the Middle East marks a great movement and overall advance for the cause of global democracy in the long run.However, in the short term, it is just as likely that the democratic movements being unleashed in the Middle Eastern nations of Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and the eventual Palestinian state, may lead to popular election victories for Islamists forces. The pro-theocratic Islanmic factions, which have radical elements, will undoubtedly cloud the outlook for the development of secular democracies. The strength of the Islamists voting bloc compared to the secularists, in the January 2005 Iraqi elections should serve as wake-up call to the U.S. that the outbreak of democracy in the Middle East is likely to produce a dramatically different picture than its intelligence analysts have predicted.

The three most decisive issues confronting the Bush Administration in the Middle East remain 1) Stabilization of a new Iraqi government and working with its allies to stand up a credible internal security force 2) Pressuring the Saudi regime to accelerate its democratization process and 3) Effectively executing its role as a broker to push Israel and the Palestinian Authority towards implementation of the Oslo Accord.

The Gordian Knot in Iraq

Since the January 30 elections the jubilation and momentum created by millions of Iraqi citizens voting in defiance of intimidation and violence by extremist forces, has slowly dissipated as the majority Shiites, the Kurds and the Sunni minority have struggled to form a new government. The inability of newly appointed Prime Minister Ibrahim Talabari to piece together a Council of Ministers to Kurdish President Jalal Talabani’s council for approval, effectively undermined the new governments position and emboldened the subversives to step up their attacks on foreign peacekeeping forces, the new Iraqi national army and American forces.

Even before the elections the U.S. changed its strategy and military mission. The goal was no longer to wipe out the insurgency, but to buttress the effort to stand up a new government, while increasingly relying on the newly trained Iraqi Army to eventually engage and defeat the insurgency. Things haven’t quite worked out that way, and it is becoming clear that the Iraqi conflict is heading into a very decisive juncture.

In parts of Iraq the national security forces are quiting or retreating to defensive postions and refusing to engage the subversives. In critical areas the subversives operate with impunity, and have intimidated citizens from cooperating with the authorities. On April 28, Prime Minister Jaffari announced the recommendations of a new Council of Ministers after the U.S. exerted extreme pressure for the Iraqis to speed up the formation of it governmental structure. However the bickering and lost momentum has eroded confidence in the new government and more announcements were made that by foreign peacekeeping forces that they would be leaving Iraq.

U.S. military forces are going to be stuck in Iraq for some time to come, and even today, U.S. intelligence cannot accurately assess the strength of the insurgency. Unless the Kurds, the Shiites majority and Sunni secularists close ranks and come to a realistic power sharing arrangement, the internal situation will become more balkanized and invite a civil war.

Pragmatic Politics & How to Draw A Roadmap that Falls Short of Oslo

Abide by the roadmap that calls for The current plan calls for removal of 21 settlements unauthorized Jewish settlements in Gaza and only four of 120 in the West Bank. A total of 9000 Israelis would have to relocate. Elections are scheduled for the Palestinian authority on July 17, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad are scheduled to participate for the first time. And are likely to do well. Should they prevail Sharon will be severely tested and face enormous pressure in Israel and from his own Likud Party that has split over the issue of ceding territories back to the Palestinians. but Sharon is intent on going forward with building 3500 new settlements on the West Bank.

While the march of democracy is borne out in certain parts of the world, it must be noted that the Bush Doctrine has yet to formulate a cogent response to the deteriorating situation on much of the African continent. If US foreign policy is to truly reshape the new world order, it must reach into the heart of this oft-neglected part of the world. Despite the many issues endemic to Africa, it is poised to be true opportunity for this new era of American hegemony. The AIDS pandemic threatens to destabilize many African nations, some of whom have made strides toward progressive government and economic reform The on-going civil war and genocidal conditions in nations such as The Sudan, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, and Liberia, to name a few, call for swift and decisive action by the world’s great powers. As the leader on the global scene, the US has both the opportunity to set a new course which will define the African continent for generations to come, while at the same time demonstrating the true magnanimity of the America spirit to nations and peoples in need.

In sum, while we acknowledge clarity of purpose of the Bush Doctrine, we also note that the implementation of these policy principles to date leaves much to be desired. If the United States is to successfully protect its international interests and cope with this new world order, it is imperative for the US to constructively re-think its relationship with The European Union, NATO, the United Nations and the emerging nations in various regions of the world.

With respect the United States diplomacy, President Bush’s propensity for unilateralist solutions has undermined the United States ability to effectively execute its foreign policy agenda. His February trip to Europe to reconcile the divide between the U.S. and Europe represented an admission that a significant amount of collateral damage existed as a result of the manner in which the U.S. prosecuted the war in Iraq and its efforts to re-constitute Iraq’s post war government Bush’s brazen dismissal of the European Union during the war, followed by his call for their cooperation to address the Iranian and North Korean nuclear arms proliferation issues was poor diplomacy, and if repeated will lead to greater isolation of the U.S. in the future.

Low Country & Chesapeake Society calls on the leaders of the United States to pursue these principles with all deliberate speed.